I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 1 3 1 6 - S CT GR E A T ER C A N TO N F O R D M

ER C U R Y , I N C ., KEI TH CLA RK, FORD M OTOR COM PANY, RAY L . FA YNE AN

D K AT RI NA FA YNE
v. WAL L A C

E A B L ES

, MAR Y B ENN E T T A ND J OH N WI L L I A MS D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 18/ 2005 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JA N N IE M . L E W IS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HOLM ES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: M I CH AEL D AV I D TA PS CO TT THOM AS W I CKER D A R A S T E E L E -B E L K IN J OHN H. F L E M I NG DAN I EL H. S CHLUET ER P HI L B. AB E RN E T HY AR NO LD D ATR ON LEE GAR Y E . F RI E DM AN LATO YA CH EREE M ERRI TT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE ES : J . DOU GLAS M I NOR, J R. NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT DI S P OS I T I ON: VAC AT E D I N P AR T AND R E VE RS E D AND R E M A N D E D I N PA R T - 02/ 01/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S B E L OW ¶1. Pl ai nt i f

f s W al l ace A bl es , M ary B ennett and J ohn H . W i l l i ams ( Pl ai nt i f f s ) pur chas ed pr e- ow ned vehi cl es f

r om G r eat erC ant on For d M er cury, I nc. ( G C FM ) . Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege thatThe three p la inti ffs were j oined by forty-one others at the initi al filing of the sui t in the 1 Ho lm es C ounty

Circuit C ourt. Th e cl aim s o f the thi rty- eight who we re n ot resi de nts of Ho lm es Co unty w ere l ate r se ve red an d tran sf

erred to t heprope r juris dic tio ns on Oc tob er 2 6, 20 04 . S ix plainti ffs rem ained, but only the three before this Court signe d retail install ment contracts, the co ntract co ntainingthearb itrati on pro vis ion

in dispute, with

GC FMan d, thu s, might besu bje ct t o arb itrati on

of the ir c laim s. 

### 2 D ef endant s , G C FM and i t s empl oyees , K ei th C l ark, R ay L. Fayne, and K atr i na Fayne, al ong w i th For d M ot orC om pany ( For d) , com m i t t ed f r aud by se l l i ng them “cert i f i ed, pr e- ow ned vehi cl es” w hen , i n f

act , the vehi cl es w er e ei thernotel i gi bl e f orthi s pr ogr am or ha d not under gone an i ns pect i on and mai nt enanc e pr ogr am re qui r ed of “cert i f i ed, pr e- ow ned
v e h icle s.” D e fe n d a n ts file d a M o tio n to S tay L iti g a tio n an d C o m p e l A rb itratio n . T h e c irc u it
courtde ni ed the m ot i on, a nd c ons equent l y, D ef endant s a ppeal . Separ at el y, For d appea l s t he
a p p lica b ili ty o f th e c irc u it co u rt ju d g m e n t to it, p a rticu lar ly , w h e th e r a s a n o n -sig n a to ry it
m ay compel arbi tr at i on. ¶ 2 . In 2 0 0 2 , th e thr e e p lain tiffs ea c h p u rc h a se d a v e h icle fro m G C F M , a F o rd d e a ler sh ip 1 l ocat ed i n C ant on, M i s s i s s i ppi . I n A ugus t2003, t he pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed s ui tagai ns tG C FM , thr ee o f i ts em p loy ee s, an d F o rd in th e H o lm es C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rtall eg ing th at du e to D ef endant s ’ m i s r epr es ent at i ons , they pur chas ed vehi cl es underthe bel i ef thatthe vehi cl es w er e ce r t i f

i ed pr e- ow ned w hen the vehi cl es had, i n f act , notunder gone the ce r t i f i cat i on p r o c e s s r e q u i r e d b y F o r d i n o r d e rt o q u a l i f y a s “ c e r t i f

i e d p r e - o wn e d . ” Ea c h p l a i n t i f f c l a i ms t o h ave p urchased o n e o f the fr aud ulent l y ident i fi ed v ehicl es, i n rel i ance o n D efendan t s’
a lleg e d m isre p re se n tatio n s, a t a n in c re a se d p ric e b a se d o n a fa lse v a lu e . A fte r th e c irc u it
co u rtgran ted a n ex tens ion of t im e for D efe n d an ts’ resp o n ses, fou r an sw ers w ere fi led. F o rd
ans w er ed i n O ct ober2003. R ay and K atr i na Fayne r espon ded j oi nt l y i n the s ame m ont h.Fo rd M oto r Co. v. Ab les , No. 05- 60391, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 29347 ( 5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2 20 06 ). 

### 3 G C FM ans w er ed i n N ovember2003, and K ei th C l ark f i l ed hi s answ er i n D ece m ber2003. E ach pa r ty l i s t ed the r i ghtt o arbi tr at e the di s put e as a def ens e. ¶3. O n February 27, 2004 , F ord alone fi l ed a M ot i on t o C om pel A rbi tr at i on and St ay L iti g a tio n in th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fo r th e S o u th e rn D istric t o f M iss iss ip p i in Jac k so n , M issi ssipp i. T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n o n M arc h 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , cit ing F o rd’s
non- s i gnat ory s t atus a nd f i ndi ng thatthe cl ai m s br oughta gai ns tFor d “s eemi ngl y f al l out s i de t he arbi tr at i on agr eement . ” For d MotorCo. v. A bles , N o. 3: 04- C V - 00152 (S. D . M i ss. M a rc h 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 ). F o rd a p p e a led , an d th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e F ifth C irc u it
r ever s ed the di s tr i ctcourt , hol di ng thatFor d coul d compel arbi tr at i on as a non- s i gnat or y. 2 ¶4 . In Ju n e 2 0 0 4 , P lai n ti ffs fi led a M o ti o n for P arti al S u m m ary Ju d g m en t and D ec laratory Ju d g m en t r eq u e stin g th e c ir cu itco u rtto d ec ide th e a rbitrab il ity o f th eir clai m s. P lai n ti ffs
co n tend ed that the arb itrati o n c laus es in the re tai l i n stal lm en t con tr ac ts ex ec u ted b y P lai n ti ffs di d notco vercl ai m s as s ert ed by Pl ai nt i f f s i n thei rcompl ai nt . G C FM and For d r es ponded i n the sam e m on th by fi l i ng in ci rcui tco urta Joi nt M oti on to Stay R esol uti on of Plai nti ff s’ M o tio n fo r P a rtial S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t. O n O c to b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , the c irc u it co u rt p a rtially g ra n te d D e fe n d a n ts ’ m o tio n , s ta y in g re s o lu tio n u n til N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 . ¶5. O n N ov em ber 29 , 20 04 , st i l l aw ai t i ng a decis i on fr om the ci rcui t cou rt on P l ai nti ff s’
m ot i on r egar di ng arbi tr abi l i ty of the cl ai m s , G C FM and K ei th C l ark fi l ed a M ot i on t o St ay L iti g a tio n an d C o m p e l A rb itratio n in th e circ u it c o u rt, w h ich all o f th e o th e r D e fe n d a n ts s ubs equent l y j oi ned. T he ci r cui tcour tent er ed an O r deron M ar ch 10, 2005, s t ayi ng i t s rul i ng

### 4

on Pl ai nt i f

f s ’ M ot i on f

orPart i al Sum m ary J udgm entunt i l the f eder al di s tr i ctcourtrul ed on F o rd ’s M o tio n to C o m p e l. F o llo w in g th e fe d e ra l d istric t c o u rt’s d e n ial o f F o rd ’s M o tio n to C om pel on M ar ch 31, 2005, the ci r cui tcourtent er ed an O r deron J une 13, 2005, gr ant i ng P lain tiffs’ M o tio n fo r P a rtia l S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t an d D e c lar a to ry Ju d g m e n t. E x p licitly
r el yi ng on the f

eder al di s tr i ctcourtopi ni on, the ci r cui tcourtr eac hed the s ame concl us i on and fou n d that P lai n ti ffs ha d n o d u ty to su b m it to arb itrati o n o f th eir clai m s. T h e c ir cu itco u rt s ubs equent l y, on J ul y 12, 2005, deni ed D ef endant s ’ M ot i on t o S t ay L i t i gat i on and C om pel A rb itr a tio n . ¶6. G C FM a nd K ei th Cl ark a ppeal ed j oi nt l y on J ul y 5, 2005, w i th For d f i l i ng i t s appea l
s epar at el y on t he s ame day. R ay and K atr i na Fayne f i l ed a N ot i ce of

A ppeal on J ul y 8, 2005. D ef

endant s e ach cl ai m the deci s i on by the H ol m es C ounty C i r cui tC our tw as i n err or reg ard ing arb itrab il ity o f P lai n ti ffs ’ c lai m s. T h ey raise o n e issu e, w h ethe r th e tri al co u rt pr oper l y r ef

used t o s t ay l i t i gat i on and compel arbi tr at i on of thos e cl ai m s pr es ent ed by P lain tiffs w h o e x e c u ted a rb itratio n a g re e m e n ts. F o rd c la im s th e c o u rt e rre d in fin d in g it i ncapa bl e of

compel l i ng arbi tr at i on as a non- s i gnat ory. For d adopt s the ar gum ent s pr es ent ed by the otherD ef

endant s and f

ur therpr es ent s tw o l egal i s s ues , s peci f i cal l y i n r el at i on t o For d. F o rd ra ises tw o issue s: ( 1 ) w h ethe r F o rd h as a ri g h t com p el arb itrati o n as a n o n -si g n atory t o the r et ai l i ns t al l m entcontr actand ( 2) w hetherthe ci r cui tcourts houl d have gr ant ed D ef endant s ’ m ot i on t o s t ay l i t i gat i on as t o For d unt i l r es ol ut i on of the arbi tr abi l i ty of P l ai nti ff s’ cl ai m s.

### 5 DI S CU S S I ON I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N DE NYI NG DE F EN DANT S ’ M OTI ON TO COM P EL ARB I TR AT I ON AND S T AY L I T I GA T I ON ¶7. A l ow ercourt ’ s gr antordeni al of a mot i on t o com pel arbi tr at i on i s r evi ew ed de novo. E a s t Fo r d

, I n c . v. T a y lo r , 8 2 6 S o . 2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). ¶ 8 . T h e f

r a u d u le n t a c ti o n s a lle g e d b y P la in tif fs re s u lte d in th e p u rc h a s e o f v e h ic le s , a tra n sa c tio n in v o lv in g c o m m e rc e . W ritten a g re e m e n ts to a rb itrate c o n tain e d in c o n tra c ts evi denci ng a tr ans act i on i nv olvi ng com m er ce a r e s ubj ectt o the Feder al A rbi tr at i on A ct ( FA A ) , 9 U. S. C. §§ 1 e ts e q. , a nd i n d e t e r mi ni ng w he the rt o g r a nta mot i on t o c ompel
arbi tr at i on of a di s put e s ubj ectt o the FA A , ther e ar e tw o pr ongs of i nqui ry. Mit

s ubi s hi Mo to rs Co rp . v. S o lerCh ry sle r-P lym o u th , I n c ., 473 U . S. 614, 626- 28, 105 S. C t . 3346, 87 L . E d . 2 d 4 4 4 (1 9 8 5 ); E a s t Fo r d , 826 S o. 2d at713. T he f i r s tprong the C our tm us texami ne is w h e th e r t h e p a rt ie s a g re e d to a rb itr a te th e d is p u te . I d. Second, the C our tm us tdet erm i ne w h e th e r l e g a l c o n s tr a in ts e x te rn a l t o th e p a rt ie s ’ a g re e m e n t b a r a rb itr a tio n o f t h e c la im s . I d. P ro n g 1 : W h eth er th e p a rties a g re ed to a rb it ra te th e d ispu te ¶ 9 . T h e first p ro n g is tw o -f o ld in th a t t h e c o u rt c o n s id e rs w h e th e r th e re is a v a lid
arbi tr at i on ag re ementand then w hetherthe part i es ’ di s put e i s w i thi n the s cope of t he
a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t. E a s t Fo r d , 826 So. 2d at713 .

### 6

A . W he t he r t he r e i s a v al i d ar bi t r at i on a gr e e m e nt ¶10. Pl ai nt i f

f s do notdi s put e the val i di ty of the arbi tr at i on agr eement . I ns t ead, the part i es di s agr ee a boutthe s cope of the agr eement , s peci f

i cal l y, w hetherthe Pl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m of fr a u d u le n t b e h a v io r i s e n c o m p a s s e d w ith in th e a rb itr a tio n p ro v is io n . B. W he t he r t he par t i e s ’ di s put e i s w i t hi n t he s c ope of t he ar bi t r at i on a gr e e m e nt ¶1 1. T hi s appe a l c e nt e r s a r ou nd the pa r t i e s ’ di s a gr e e ment a s t o the i nt e rpr e t a t i on of t he agr eement . D ef

endant s di s put e w ho, a cour toran arbi tr at or , s houl d i nt erpr etthe agr eement and det erm i ne i t s scope as w el l as w hetherthe arbi tr at i on agr eementi n the r et ai l i ns t al l m ent contr actencom pas s es P l ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s . C ons equent l y, t w o quest i ons m us tbe ans w er ed: ( 1)
w h ethe r the p rop er fo rum for d eterm ining the s co p e o f th e a rbitrati o n ag ree m en t i s in c o u rt o r i n a rb itr a tio n , A T& T T echnologies, Inc. v. C om m uni cati ons W orkers of Am er i ca , 475 U . S. 643, 649, 106 S. Ct . 1415, 89 L . Ed. 2d 648 ( 1986) ( ci t i ng U nited Steelw orkers of A m e r ic a v. W

a r r io r& G u lf

N a v ig a tio n Co ., 363 U . S. 574, 582- 83, 80 S. C t . 1347 4 L . E d. 2d 1409 ( 1960) ) , and (2) w hetherthe arbi tr at i on agr eementencompas s es the di s put e, Mit sub ishi Motors , 4 7 3 U .S . at 6 2 6 -2 8 . E ffic ien c y d icta tes tha t w e d e c id e first w h e th e r it is p ro p e r fo r th e c o u rt to in terp re t th e a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t b e fo re a ttem p tin g to in terp re t it . ¶12. Fi r s t , w e mustde t erm i ne the pr operi nt erpr et erof the arbi tr at i on agr eement . W e have notpr evi ous l y ans w er ed thi s part i cul arinquiry. H ow ever , s i nce the FA A governs t he enf or cementof

the di s put ed agr eement , w e ar e bound by the dec i s i ons of the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t , w hi ch has spoken on t he i s s ue. W hi l e t hi s C our tcons i s t ent l y r ecogni zes t he
e s ta b lis h e d fe d e ra l p o lic y fa v o ri n g a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n ts , T e rm in ix I

n t’l, I n c ., L td . P ’sh ip
v. R i ce , 904 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (M i s s . 2004) , [ t ] he pr es um pt i on i n f avorof arbi tr at i on does

### 7

n o ta p p l y t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f wh o s h o u l d d e c i d e a rb i tr a b i l i ty , b e c a u s e th e p u rp o s e o f th e F AA
w as t o m ake a rbi tr at i on agr eem ents as e nf or ceabl e as othercontr act s , notm or e s o, First O pti ons of Chi cago, I

nc. v. K aplan , 514 U . S. 938, 945, 115 S. C t . 1920, 131 L . E d. 2d 985 ( 1995) . W hethera party i s bound by an arbi tr at i on agr eementi s gener al l y cons i der ed an i ssue for the cou rt s, no tt he arbi trat or, "[ u] nl es s the par t i es cl ear l y and unm is takabl

y pr ovi de otherw ise . " A T& T

T e c h n o log ie s, 475 U . S. at649 ( emphasi s added) . I n otherw or ds , w hen the part i es have ex pli ci t l y agr eed thatthe ques t i on of arbi tr abi l i ty i s t o be dec i ded by an arb itrator rathe r th an the c o u rt , that ag ree m en t m u st be interpre ted b y an arb itrator. ¶ 1 3 . T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s m a n d a ted th a t g e n e ra l c o n tra c t p rin c ip les w ill appl y. C ons equent l y, the gene r al pr act i ce of al l ow i ng court s t o det erm i ne the i s sue of
arbi tr abi l i ty i s super cede d by t he contr actual t erm s of an arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i on w hi ch pr ovi de that arbitrabi l i ty w i l l be d eci ded by an arbi trat or. T he term s of the arbi trat i on provis i on m ust b e h o n o re d in a d isp u te o v e r a rb itrab ili ty . T h e re fo re , a rb itratio n o f th e iss u e o f a rb itrab ili ty i s the mandat ory r es ul ti f thos e ar e the t erm s t o w hi ch the part i es have va l i dl y agr eed. T hat pr emi s e i s ent i r el y cons i s t entw i th the vi ew of thi s C ou rt . I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thatpar t i es m a y a g re e o n th e sc o p e o f a rb itr a tio n in a n y w a y th e y d e s ir e . B . C . R ogers P oultr

y, I nc. v. W e d g e w o rth , 911 So. 2d 483, 491 ( M i s s . 2005) . Cont r act s a r e s ol emn obl i gat i ons , and the
c o u rt m u s t g iv e th e m e ff e c t a s w ri tte n . I

d . at487. ¶14. U nderthe exce pt i on i n the bi ndi ng a uthori t y, t he q uest i on beco m es w hether t he agr eementcl ear l y and unmi s t akabl y s t at es thati nt erpr et at i on of the agr eementw i l l be arbi trat ed. T he p ert i nen tpartof the arbi trat i on provis i on reads:

### 8

E i theryou orC r edi t or( “us ” or“w e”) ( eac h, a Par ty) m ay choos e atany t i m e, i ncl udi ng af

t era l aw sui tis fi l ed, t o have a ny C l ai m r el at ed t o thi s contr act deci ded by arbitrat i on. Such cl ai m s i ncl ude, butar e notl i m i t ed t o the foll o w ing : ( 1 ) claim s in c o n tra c t, t o rt , reg u lat o ry, or o therw ise; (2) c la i ms r egar di ng the i nt er

pr etat i on, s cope orv al i di t y of this claus e orar bi tr abi l i t y of a ny is s u e .... (E m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶15. D ef

endant s as s ert that the ci r cui t court nev er shou l d hav e rul ed on the ques t i on of
w hetherPl ai nt i f

f s agr eed t o arbi tr at e t hei rcl ai m s w hen one of the s peci f

i c exa m pl es i n t he agr eementl i s t s di s put es as t o arbi tr abi l i ty of cl ai m s as an exam ple of i ssue s f orw hi ch the part i es agr eed t o s ubm i tt o a rbi tr at i on. Pl ai nt i f f s c ont end thatthe governi ng l anguage i s the g e n e ra l lan g u a g e “ re late d to [th e re tai l i n s ta llm e n t] c o n tra c t” w h ich p re c e d e s th e sp e c ific
e x a m p le D e fe n d a n ts c ite. P lain tiffs m a in tain tha t th e g e n e ra l l a n g u a g e d o e s n o t ap p ly to th e ir cl ai m , w hi ch r el at es t o pr e- s al e f r audul entr epr es ent at i on s and n ott o the r et ai l i ns t al l m ent contr act , a f

i nanci ng agr eementbetw een the pl ai nt i f f s a nd G C FM . Thus, Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue that th e e x a m p le o f a rb itrab ili ty d o e s n o t en c o m p a ss a rb itrab ili ty o f a c laim u n re late d to th e re tail i ns t al l m entcontr act , s uch as the cl ai m i n thi s cas e, and ac cor di ngl y, thatthe court , notan a rb itrato r sh o u ld in terp re t th e a g re e m e n t b e c a u s e a t a m in im u m th e g e n e ra l an d sp e c ific l anguage D ef

endant s ci t e i s conf

l i ct i ng as oppos ed t o cl earand unmi s t akabl e. ¶1 6. C l ear l y, the l a ng ua ge o f the a rbi tr a t i on a gr e e mentd i r e ct s t hatdi s put es r egar di ng i nt erpr et at i on of

t he agr eement , i ncl udi ng scope and arbi tr abi l i ty of i s s ues , t o be dec i ded by
an arbitr at or . T hough Pl ai nt i f f s di s put e the cl ar i ty of the l anguage i n the pr ovi s i on, t he exampl es i n t he arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i on expl i ci t l y i dent i f y di s put es as t o i nt erpr et at i on, s cope, val i di ty, and arbi tr abi l i ty of any i s s ue as thos e s ubj ectt o arbitr at i on upon the i ni t i at i on ofGC FMfi led its Mo tio n toCo m

pe l an d toStay

Liti gatio n fi ft een

mo nth s af

ter thesuit w as 3 fi led an d w as l ate r jo ine d b y th e o ther de fend ants. 

### 9 e ith e r p a rty , inc lu d in g a fte r litig a tio n h a d b e g u n . T h e re fo re , this c lea r a n d u n m ista k a b le 3 lan g u a g e re q u ire s th is C o u rt to fin d th a t th e a p p ro p ria te f o ru m fo r in terp re tatio n is
a rb itr a tio n . ¶ 1 7 . H a d w e fo u n d the co u rt ca p a b le o f d e c id in g a rb itr a b ility , w e w o u ld p ro c e e d to det erm i ne w hetherthe arbi trat i on agreem ent encom passes the d i spute. H ow ever , w e nee d not pr ocee d t o the rul es of

i nt erpr et at i on f

orarbi tr at i on pr ovi s i ons i n or dert o det erm i ne w hether the ci r cui tc our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the pr ovi s i on i n di s put e w as pr opers i nce w e have f ound th a t th e c o u rtw as th e im p rop er fo rum for su ch a d eterm ination , an d there fore , the c ir c u it
c o u rt ju d g m e n t is in e ffe c tiv e . H a v in g a p p lied th e first p ro n g o f th e tw o -p ro n g e d in q u iry , this C our tf i nd s tha tthe i s s ue on r e vi e w – whethe rthe pl a i nt i f f s ’ a l l e ga t i on s of

f r audul ent behavi orby the def

endant s ar e s ubj ectt o the arbi tr at i on agr eementi n the r et ai l i ns t al l m ent c o n tra c t – is p ro p e rly d e c id e d b y a n a rb itrato r ra th e r th a n a c o u rt. Pro ng 2 : W he t he r Lega l C ons t r ai nt s Ext e r nalt o t he Par t i e s ’ A gr e e m e nt F o r e c lo se A r b itr a tio n o f th e C la im ¶18. A s f

orthe s econd pr ong of

the t es t , the exi s t ence of l egal cons tr ai nt s ext ernal t o t he part i es ’ agr eement , f

or ecl os i ng arbi tr at i on of the cl ai m , even i f

the cl ai m w as f

ound t o be
w ith in th e arb itratio n p ro v isio n in q u e stio n , “[t]he F A A m a n d a tes th a t arb itratio n a g re e m e n ts sh a ll b e v a lid , irrev o c a b le, a n d e n fo rc e a b le, s a v e u p o n su c h g ro u n d s a s e x ist a t law o r in equi ty f orthe r evoca t i on of

any contr act . ” R i ce , 9 0 4 S o . 2 d at 10 5 5 (i n terna l qu o tes o m itted). In c o n s id e ri n g th is p ro n g , c o u rt s sh o u ld a p p ly o rd in a ry sta te -l a w c o n tr a c t p r in c ip le s . E ast

### 10

Fo r d , 826 So. 2d at713- 14. D ef ens es s uch as fr aud, dur es s , and uncons ci onabi l i ty m ay be
a s s e rt e d to in v a lid a te th e a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t w ith o u t o ff e n d in g th e F A A . See id. at714. ¶1 9 . P lai n ti ffs all eg e tha t th ey w ere fr au d u lently i n d u ce d t o pu rch ase v eh icl es. P lai n ti ffs fu rth e r c laim th a t th e y w e re fr a u d u len tly in d u c e d to e n ter in to a sa les c o n tra c t, an d it i s o n ly
w i th r egar d t o s uch s al e contr actthatthey cl ai m f r audul enti nducement . Y et , no s uch contr act
w a s p re se n ted to th is C o u rt i n eith e r th e rec o rd , o n ly m e n tio n e d in th e b rie fs. T h is C o u rt is lim ited to c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e fa c ts in th e re c o rd , w h ile re lian c e o n fa c ts o n ly d isc lo se d in th e b ri e fs is p ro h ib ite d . A tlan ti c Horse Ins. Co. v. N ero , 1 08 M i s s . 3 21 , 3 29 , 66 So. 780 ( 1914) . M or eover , perthe i s s ues r ai s ed by the part i es i n r es pons e t o the ci r cui tcourt ’ s deni al of defendan t s’ m oti on t o co m pel arbitrat i on , the subj ectm at t er unde rcons i der at i on on r evi ew co n sist s ex clus ively o f th e a rbitrati o n ag ree m en t in th e re tai l i n stal lm en t con tr ac t. P lai n ti ffs
a rg u e th a t th e re tail in sta llm e n t co n tra c t e n c o m p a ss in g th e a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t is w h o lly
unr el at ed t o the s al e of

the vehi cl es a nd, thus , thei rcl ai m s of f r aud. T her ef

or e, as the s econd pr ong of the t es tr equi r es as s ert i on o f a co ntr actdef ens e, cl ear l y, Pl ai nt i f

f s have ne i ther
r ai s ed the ar gum entnorpr es ent ed evi dence i ndi cat i ng thatthey w er e f r audul ent l y i nduced t o ent eri nt o the arbi tr at i on agr eement . H avi ng f ound f r om the pl ai nt i f

f s no al l egat i on of frau d u lent ind u ce m en t t o en teri n g th e arb itrati o n ag ree m en t an d no de fen se p rese n ted b efo re the C o u rtas to w h y the a rbitrati o n p rov isi o n sh o u ld b e d ee m ed u n e n fo rce ab le, this C o u rt f i nds no l egal c ons tr ai nt s e xt ernal t o the part i es ’ agr eementthatw oul d f or ecl os e arbi tr at i on. ¶20. M i s s i s s i ppi l aw honor s contr act s as w r i t t en, a conce pt the di s s ent acknow l edges but f ai l s t o appl y. T he di s s entw hol l y m i s s es t he di s put e betw een the par t i es on appea l . O n appea l fro m th e c irc u it c o u rt’s d e n ial o f d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to c o m p e l arb itratio n , the p a rties d isp u te

### 11

one thi ng - the i nt erpr et at i on of the arbi tr at i on agr eement . Pl ai nt i f f s agr eed thatupon the
occurr ence of

s uch a di s put e, the part i es w oul d s ubm i tt o arbi tr at i on of thati s s ue, and the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t , w hi ch thi s C our ti s i ndeed bound t o f ol l ow , ha s m andat ed that
w e h o n o r th e p arti es’ c h o ice. W e w o u ld ac t i n d ero g ati o n o f th e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt as w el l as the part i es ’ i nt entt o i nt erpr etoral l ow any court , i ncl udi ng thi s one, t o i nt erpr et the arbi tr at i on agr eementw hen the part i es have c ontr act ed otherw i s e. W e dec i de t oday nei therw hetherPl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s ar e encompas s ed by the arbi tr at i on a gr eementnorw hether the en t i re cas e m ustbe d eci ded by arbi trat i on or by tr i al . B ecau se w e h o n o r the p art i es’
w r i t t en agr eement , t he di s s entvoi ces a f earw hi ch i s unf

ounded. W e do notend l i t i gat i on and
s end the ent i re ca s e t o be arbi tr at ed. W e s end the part i es , acc or di ng t o thei rundi s put ed,
e x p lic it w is h e s , to a rb itr a tio n s o le ly to d e te rm in e a rb itr a b ility o f t h e irc la im s . ¶2 1. U pon compl et i on of the tw o- pr on ge d i nq ui ry, the d e c i s i on s o f thi s Courtand t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tnece s s i t at e that w e honor the agr eementof the part i es as evi dence d i n thei rcontr actand f i nd t hatt he ci r cui tcourterr ed i n rul i ng on the i nt erpr et at i on o f th e arb itratio n p ro v isio n an d d e c lar in g it s s c o p e . T h e trial c o u rt d e c isio n is v a c a ted a s to i t s det erm i nati on of arbitrabi l i ty o f the clai m s. I I . W HET HER T HE CI RCUI T C OURT ER RE D I N DE NYI NG DE F EN DANT S ’ M OTI ON T O COM P EL ARB I TR AT I ON AND S TA Y L I TI GATI ON AS TO F ORD ¶22. For d ar gues s epar at el y i n i t s appeal of t he ci r cui t court j udgm ent that Pl ai nt i f f s had
n o d u ty to s u b m it th e ir c laim s o f fra u d to a rb itratio n . F o rd m a in tain s th a t, as a d e fe n d a n t, d e sp ite its n o n -sig n a to ry sta tu s, it ca n in d e p e n d e n tly c o m p e l a rb itratio n . S e c o n d , itre q u e stsAs a matter of venue, Ford chose to have the issue of its ability to com

pel arb itrati on 4 de cided in f ed eral co urt , and

Fo rd i s b ound

bythat cho ice . Th e fe de raldistric t co urt judgm ent w as rev ers ed on appe al b y th e Unit ed

St ate s C ourt o f A

pp eal s f or t heFi ft h C irc uit . 

### 12 that this C ou rtst ay the l i t i gati on i n the ci rcui tcourtpend i ng arbitrat i on of the cl ai m s agai nst the rem ai ning defend ants . ¶2 3. A s f

orFo r d’ s a bi l i ty t o c ompe l a rbi tr a t i on a s a non- s i gnat or y t o t he arbi t r at i on pr ovi s i on i n di spute, F ord f i r s tatt empt ed t o gai n contr actenf or cementr i ght s i n f

eder al di s tr i ctcourt . T he f

eder al di s tr i ctcourtrul ed thatFor d coul d notcompel arbi tr at i on. 4 ¶ 2 4 . W h i l e th e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t me n t i o n c o mi ty s p e c i f i c a l l y , wh e n d e c i d i n g th e s a me i s s u e th e c o u r te x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e d th e a n a l y s i s o f th e f e d e r a l c o u r ta n d i s s u e d th e s a me j udgm ent . C om i ty i s s i m i l art o f ul l f ai th a nd c r edi tbuti s notgove rned by the U ni t ed St at es C o n s titu tio n o r f

e d e ra l s ta tu te s . See L as kos ky v. L as kos ky , 504 So. 2d 726, 729 ( M i s s . 1987) ( ci t i ng K o u n to u ris v. V

a rv a ris , 4 7 6 S o . 2 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); Cox v. Cox , 234 So. 2d 885, 892, 108 So. 2d 422 ( 1959) ) . C om i ty i s a pr i nci pl e bas ed on cour t es y w hi ch r ecogni zes the dec i s i on of

a courtf r om anot herj ur i s di ct i on. “I n gener al , the pr i nci pl e of “comi ty” i s t hat
c ou r t s o f o ne s t a t e o rj ur i s di c t i on wi l l g i ve e f f e c tt o l a w s a nd j ud i c i a l d e c i s i on s of anot her
s ta te o r ju ri s d ic tio n , n o t a s a m a tte r o f o b lig a tio n b u t o u t o f d e fe re n c e a n d m u tu a l r e s p e c t.” B la c k ’s L a w D ic tio n a ry 1 8 3 (a b ri d g e d 6 th e d . 1 9 9 1 ). ¶ 2 5 . T h e c o u rt e s y o f c o m ity is a p p lie d a t th e d is c re tio n o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt . Jundoosing v. Jundoo s ing , 8 2 6 S o . 2 d 8 5 , 9 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ); L as kos ky , 504 So. 2d at729. T h e c ir cu itco u rt s t ayed the i dent i cal act i on i n i t s courtt o aw ai tt he out come i n fe der al di s tr i ctcourt . U pon the iss u a n c e o f th e d istric t co u rt d e c isio n , th e c irc u it co u rt issu e d a d e c isio n d ra w in g its so le
r at i onal e and ul t i m at e rul i ng f r om the di s tr i ctc our tj udge, r ef err i ng t o hi m by name. C l ear l y,

### 13

w hen f ace d w i th the i dent i cal i s s ue, the tr i al courti n i t s ow n w or ds “i n agr eementw i th t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our t ” deci ded t o re cogni ze the f eder al di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j udgm ent , and th is C o u rt fin d s n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n in th a t de c isio n . H o w e v e r, n o w th a t th e F ifth C irc u it h a s re v e rse d th e d istric t c o u rt, th e s a m e p rin c ip le o f c o m ity a p p lies , a n d th is C o u rt d e fe rs to th a t ru lin g . T h u s, m o o tin g F o rd ’s a p p e a l to th is C o u rt. ¶2 6 . B a se d o n th e a b o v e rea so n s, the c ir cu itco u rtsh o u ld h av e e x clud ed F o rd f ro m its d e c isio n o f a rb itrab ili ty b e c a u se b y F o rd ’s c h o ice o f fo ru m itw a s b o u n d b y th e o u tco m e in fe d e ra l co u rt. T h e c irc u it co u rt a p p lied a n ac c e p tab le le g a l stan d a rd w h e n it ex e rc ise d c o m ity
w i th r es pectt o t he out come i n f eder al courtas t o For d. CO NC L US I ON ¶27. I n acc or dance w i th the l aw , the pl ai n t ext of the arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i on, and the f eder al pol i cy f avor i ng arbi tr at i on, thi s C our tf i nds thatthe arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i on r equi r es a s t ay of lit ig a tio n w h ile P lain tiffs s u b m it t o a rb itratio n fo r a d e ter m in a tio n o f th e a rb itrab ili ty o f th e ir cl ai m s of

f r audul entm i s r epr es ent at i on agai ns tG C FM , K ei th C l ark, R ay L. Fayne, and K atr ina F ay ne. T heref ore, this C ou rtvacates the cir cuitcou rt ’s j ud gm ent, as t o those d e fe n d a n ts , in te rp re tin g th e a rb itr a tio n p ro v is io n . ¶ 2 8 . A d d iti o n a lly , the circ u it c o u rt j u d g m e n t de n y in g F o rd ’s rig h t t o c o m p e l ar b itratio n is
r ever s ed i n accor dance w i th the r ever s al by the Fi f th C i r cui tof

the di s tr i ctcourtdeci s i on u p o n w h ich th e c ir cu itco u rtw h o ll y reli ed . T h u s, th is case is r em an d ed to the circu itco u rt
w i th di r ect i ons t o s t ay the ent i r e ca s e pendi ng arbi tr at i on. ¶ 2 9 . VAC ATED I N PART AND REVERSED AND REM AND ED I N PART.

### 14

W AL LE R AND COBB, P . J J . , CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, J J . , CONCUR. EAS LEY, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON . DI AZ , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEPARA TE W RI TTEN OP I NI ON J OI NE D I N P A R T B Y E AS L E Y, J . GR AV E S AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . DI AZ , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶30. B eca us e a contr act that i s f r audul ent l y i nduced i s voi d ab i ni t i o, and beca us e f eder al law sh o u ld n o t m a n d a te th e re su lt i n to d a y ’s c a se , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. I . A rbi t rat i on D oes N ot A ppl y i n T hi s C as e. ¶31. T he maj or i ty s truggl es mi ght i l y t o a ppl y arbi tr at i on t o thi s cas e, and i n doi ng s o, does damage t o both the l aw and the f actual r ecor d be f

or e us . T he f

ol l ow i ng f

act s ar e undi s put ed. T her e w er e tw o tr ans act i ons i n thi s cas e. F i r s t , t he pl ai nt i f f s m ade a dec i s i on t o pur chas e a vehi cl e f r om G r eat erC ant on For d. Second, the pl ai nt i f f s ent ered i nto a sepa r at e contr act
w ith th e d e a ler sh ip to s e c u re c re d it fo r th e p u rc h a se o f th e c a rs. T h e c o n tra c t fo r c re d it cont ai ned the arbi tr at i on cl aus e w hi ch w e exa m i ne t oday. ¶32. H ow ever , t he f

r aud al l eged by the pl ai nt i f f s goes t o t he pr e- s al e r epr es ent at i ons of the deal er s hi p. T he maj or i ty cr af t s a part i cul arl y fl i m s y s car ecr ow w hen i ts t at es thatt he “P lai n ti ffs ha v e n eith er raised the a rgu m en t no r pre sen ted ev iden ce ind icati n g that they w ere f r audul ent l y i nduced t o ent eri nt o t he arbi tr at i on agr eement . ” Si nce thi s w as notan ar gum ent o f th e p lain tiffs, it i s o f c o u rse e a sy fo r th e m a jo rity to d ism iss it. ¶ 3 3 . T h e p lai n tif

fs a c tu a lly a rg u e d th a t th e a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t c o n tain e d in th e c re d it
c on tr a c td i d no te xt e nd t o orr e l a t e o uto f the s e pa r a t e c on tr a c tf orp ur c ha s e . T hus t hey
o ffe re d th a t, sin c e th e a rb itratio n c lau se w a s in a s e p a ra te tra n sa c tio n , it d id n o t re a c h th e ir

### 15

c la im s . T h is a rg u m e n t s a tis fi e s b o th lo g ic a n d c o m m o n s e n s e . See G re e n w o o d v. Sh e rfie ld , 8 9 5 S . W . 2 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 5 (M o . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) (“w h ere the s tat em en ts th a t g iv e ris e to a to rt cl ai m ar e i ndepende ntof the contr actt erm s betw een the part i es and do notr equi r e r ef er ence to the u n d erlying co n tr ac ts, arb itrati o n is no t com p ell ed ”). ¶34. Fur ther , any f

r aud t o coer ce a party i nt o ent er i ng a contr act aut om at i cal l y i nval i dat es thatthe contr act

— and any cl aus e ther ei n— ab i ni t i o. T he bedr ock rul e of contr actl aw i s t hat

“ [a ] w ri tte n c o n tr a c t is to b e u p h e ld u n le s s it is o b ta in e d th ro u g h d e c e it o r m is re p re s e n ta tio n .” Continental

Jew el r y Co. v. Jos eph , 1 4 0 M iss . 5 8 2 , 5 8 5 , 1 0 5 S o . 6 3 9 , 6 3 9 (1 9 2 5 ); E s tate of B ax ter v. S h aw A ssocs. , 797 So. 2d 396, 399 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2001) . A ccor di ngl y, the
arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i on cont ai ned i n t he cr edi tcontr acti s notal l
- encompas s i ng. I I . A r b it r a ti o n D a m a g e s th e C o n s ti tu ti o n a l R ig h ts o f M is s is s ip p ia n s . ¶35. I al s o w ri t e to ex press m y con t i nu i ng co ncern ato ur st eadfas tm ar ch t ow ar ds
arbi tr at i on. A rbi tr at i on as a conce pti s w hol l y val i d— i f part i es w i s h t o s ett l e di s put es out s i de
o f th e leg a l sy ste m , the y sh o u ld b e a b le to c o n tra c t fo r su c h a re su lt. ¶36. H ow ever , tw o m as s i ve pr ob l e ms h a ve pr oved t o be the norm r atherthan the exce pt i on. F i r s t , th i s Co u r th a s c o n t i n u a l l y d e f e rr e d t o t h e d e c i s i o n s o f th e f e d e r a l c o u r t s a n d th e F AA,
w hich is a c rea ti on of the U . S . C on gress . In m y v i ew , the st at es ar e no tbo un d b y these deci s i ons , and the Legi s l atur e and court s of M i s s i s s i ppi s houl d ul t i m at el y r egul at e the us age o f a rb itr a tio n w ith in o u r s ta te . S e e g e n e ra lly A l lied-B r uce Term ini

x Com pani es, I

nc. v. D obs on , 5 1 3 U .S . 2 6 5 , 2 8 5 -9 7 , 1 1 5 S .C t. 8 3 4 , 8 4 5 -5 1 , 1 3 0 L .E d . 7 5 3 (1 9 9 5 ) ( T h o m a s , J ., d issen ti n g ).

### 16

¶37. I al s o r epeat t he sam e conce rns I have pr evi ous l y voi ced conce rni ng the unl i m i t ed
r eac h of arbi tr at i on: i f

w e dec i de t oday t hatarbi tr at i on cover s cl ai m s w hol l y unre l at ed t o t he contr actf

r om w hi ch i ti s gr ounded, w hati s notcover ed by thi s arbi tr at i on agr eement ? For exampl e, i f

one of the pl ai nt i f

f s had been m ur der ed w hi l e atG r eat erC ant on F or d payi ng a b il l, co u ld the d ea lership in sistthat th e w ron g ful de ath c lai m be sub m itted to arb itrati o n ? If
a n e m p lo y e e o f G re a ter C a n to n F o rd p ick e d o n e o f th e p lain tiff’s p o c k e ts w h e n h e c a m e in on bus i ness rel at ed t o the pur chas e of a vehi cl e, and the pl ai nt i f f s ued the empl oyee f

or conver s i on, w oul d he be f or ced t o arbi tr at e thatcl ai m ? W oul d i tm ake no di f f er ence thatt he
con versi on had occu rr ed 2 0 y ears aft er herl asttransact i on w i th G reat er C anton Fo rd? T hese
very s ame hypot het i cal s w er e di s m i s s ed as abs ur d by the Seventh C i r cui t , w hi ch l i m i t ed an
arbi tr at i on agr eementoverpayday l oans i n Smith v. S te in k a mp , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 7 7 5 , 7 7 7 (7th C ir . 2003) . Y ett oday w e cha r ta di f f er entpath— one t ow ar ds unl i m i t ed arbi tr at i on. ¶3 8. L as t l y, I w r i t e t o emphasi ze my c on t i nu i ng b e l i e f tha ta l l M i s s i s s i pp i ans have a f u n d a me n t a l c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h tt o b o th a j u ry o f th e i rp e e r s a n d a c c e s s t o th e c o u r ts y s t e m. B eca us e arbi tr at i on s i gni f i cant l y i nt er f

er es w i th thes e f

undament al r i ght s , i ts houl d be
re v ie w e d a c c o rd in g ly w ith s tr ic t s c ru tin y . See Cle v e land v. Mann , 942 So. 2d 108, 121- 22 ( M i s s . 2006) ( D i az, J . , di s s ent i ng) . B eca us e t oday the m aj or i ty c ont i nues dow n a path w hi ch d e p riv e s M iss iss ip p ian s o f fu n d a m e n tal c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts, I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. E A S L E Y , J ., J O I N S T H I S O P I N I O N I N P A R T .